A key part of the direct defense challenge being faced in Europe today is political warfare with the 21st century authoritarian powers.

And a key policy instrument being used by both Russia and China WITHIN European states is disinformation guided by an ability to connect that disinformation with the defense efforts of European allies participating in joint defense efforts.

At the International Fighter Conference 2019, the head of the Lithuanian Air Force highlighted how the Russians were directly intervening within Lithuanian affairs to present disinformation as “facts” about what the allies of the Baltic states were doing to shape a collective defense effort.

As noted in an article we published about the International Fighter Conference:

Col. Dainius Guzas, Lithuanian Air Force Commander, provided a briefing entitled “Developing Capability Against a Peer Opponent.”

The challenge as described by Guzas was both the direct threat posed by Russia against the Baltics and the use of political warfare to undercut the core defense of Lithuania – the engagement of NATO allies in Baltic Air Policing and the delivery of air defense to Lithuania via NATO coalition airpower.

Because of the significant number of NATO air policing participants in the Baltic Air Policing effort, Lithuania was a host nation to a wide variety of NATO forces.

This means that they probably have experienced more first-hand knowledge than most of the challenge of operating the range of NATO fighter aircraft at the tactical edge in NATO defense.

This NATO engagement experienced first-hand by the Lithuanian Air Force provides the ground truth for how to defend the Baltics in a crisis

And the Russians have spent considerable time and effort in generating “fake news” to try to undercut the confidence of Lithuanians in their NATO allies.

This form of political warfare is combined with air space incursions to try to test and pressure the Baltic Republics.

Three slides from Col. Guzas’s briefing can be seen in the slide pack below, which illustrate his discussion of Russian airspace violations, the NATO participants to data in Baltic Air Policing, and an example of Russian “fake news” designed to undercut the confidence of Lithuanians in their NATO allies.

One can go to the article and see all of Col. Guzas’s slides but the one below captures the challenge being posed:

Recently, the well respected Canadian defense journalist, Murray Brewster, highlighted a similar challenge posed for Canadian forces operating in support of Baltic defense.

“The Canadian-led NATO battle group in Latvia was the target of a pandemic-related disinformation campaign that alliance commanders say they believe originated in Russia.

“Reports circulated recently in some Baltic and Eastern European media outlets that suggested the contingent at Camp Adazi in Kadaga, outside the capital of Riga, had “a high number” of cases of the deadly virus.

“That was definitely not true,” said Col. Eric Laforest, commander of Task Force Latvia.

“When the reports first surfaced, ahead of a major exercise late last month, the Latvian defence ministry swung into action to counter the false information.

“The Latvian authorities here were the ones to set the record straight because it was information about troops stationed in their country,” said Laforest. “Rapidly, within a matter of a few hours, they went out and explained what the situation was. It actually happened fairly fast.”

Brewster added:

“The propaganda campaign directed at NATO troops emerged around the time they were engaged in a training exercise which took them just outside their base.

“Known as Exercise Steele Crescendo, the training involved troops and tanks simulating defences against an armoured attack on the Baltic country.”

Also, see the following:

Information Warfare and the Authoritarian States: How Best to Respond?

We deal with this type of political warfare as a key part of the challenge for direct defense of Europe facing the 21st century authoritarians in our forthcoming book.

https://products.abc-clio.com/abc-cliocorporate/product.aspx?pc=A6252C

Our colleague John Blackburn has highlighted the publication of a new report published by the Henry Jackson Society, based in London.

A new report by a UK Think Tank, the Henry Jackson Society, addresses the supply chain dependence on China by the “Five-Eye” powers.

Of the five powers, Australia is strategically dependent on China for the largest number of imports.

Within goods that service the “Critical 11”, we are strategically dependent on 41 categories and 11 sectors which no other member of the five powers are.

Case studies in the report include pharmaceuticals, energy systems , information technology, as well as food and agriculture.

Andrew Hastie, a contributor to the report, notes that “Our strategic dependency on critical imports makes us vulnerable to not only economic coercion, but also supply chain warfare.

To mitigate this risk, the Australian government should initiate a review of all trade-exposed products, industries and sectors in the economy.”

Our Institute recently suggested to a Joint Parliamentary Committee that we pursue a Smart Sovereignty and Trusted Supply Chain model.

We maintain that this is not just an issue related to our dependencies on China, but rather a need to review all of our supply chain dependencies.

Our supply chain resilience is poor.

The Executive Summary to the report highlights the challenges:

Since the end of the Cold War, the United Kingdom (UK), United States (US), Australia, Canada and New Zealand – the five powers commonly known in intelligence circles as the “Five Eyes” – have been among the leading advocates of “hyper-globalisation”, the idea that markets should prevail over almost all other considerations. China has benefited disproportionally from this form of globalisation, leading to a fundamental transformation in its economic and industrial fortunes over the past two decades.

Although already well-established in the US, the idea of “decoupling”, particularly from China’s economy, has gained currency with the COVID-19 crisis. The inability to produce and source Personal Protective Equipment via globalised supply chains has reminded democratic governments and peoples that it is necessary to be able to produce strategic commodities, just as China’s actions and behaviour have reminded them of the authoritarian nature of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Under Xi Jinping’s leadership, the CCP has already used China’s economic power as a geostrategic weapon to revise the rules-based international system. Now vulnerable to rising domestic and international criticism over its handling of the COVID-19 outbreak, the CCP has adopted a policy of aggressive defence, to the extent that it is exploiting accumulated economic dependencies for political gain. While the rest of the world remains focused on combatting COVID-19, China is pushing forward with strategic campaigns to dominate all major sectors of global trade, and by degrees to take over control of international market standards.

For the full report, see the following:

https://henryjacksonsociety.org/publications/breaking-the-china-supply-chain-how-the-five-eyes-can-decouple-from-strategic-dependency/